1. Reaching a Verdict Persuading a Jury

2. Reaching a Verdict The courtroom is very important in the British Criminal Justice system. The British Justice system is an adversarial system, where two sides (the prosecution and the defence) argue the case in front of judge and jury. A jury consists of 12 ordinary members of the public. Everyone over 18 on the electoral right is eligible for jury service (normally two weeks), except prisoners, ex-prisoners and those with mental illness. On arrival at court jurors are allocated randomly to courtrooms and take an oath to try the defendant fairly. After the jury has listened to all the evidence, the judge instructs them on procedures and verdicts and the jury retires to reach a decision. Jury’s have to come to a majority decision.

3. Reaching a Verdict Here we will be looking at: Persuading a jury Witness appeal Reaching a verdict

4. Persuading a Jury: Effect of order of testimony It is the job of the prosecution to persuade a jury that a defendant is guilty and the defence to persuade that the defendant is not guilty. However, many other factors may influence this: Murdoch (1962) in a lab study using word lists discovered an effect known as the ‘primacy effect’, where words at the beginning of a list were more likely to be recalled. What does this suggest in terms of the courtroom? This would suggest that the prosecution had an advantage, as this evidence is always given first. Glanzer & Cunitz’ (1966) presented two groups of participants with the same list of words and got one group to recall immediately and the other to have their recall disrupted by counting backwards. The first group showed better recall of the words at the end of the list, whereas the disrupted group lost the benefit of the recency effect. What does this suggest in terms of the courtoom? This would suggest that most important pieces of information are at the beginning of the trial (prosecution statement) and end (judge’s summing up).

5. Persuading a Jury: Effect of order of testimony What implications does this have for court? The order in which information is presented must be considered. Is it best to present information in strict story order (from the beginning to the end in chronological order or event) or should the best witnesses be presented first or last to take advantage of the primacy/recency effect?

6. Persuading a Jury: Effect of order of testimony Pennington & Hastie – Effects of memory structure on judgement Pennington & Hastie (1988) shows that story order is best, any other order can be confusing for the jury. Aim: To investigate whether or not story order evidence summaries are true causes of the final verdict and the extent to which story order affects confidence in those verdicts. Method: Lab Experiment Procedure: 130 students from Northwestern & Chicago university were paid to take part in an experiment. They were allocated into 4 conditions: 39 prosecution items (guilty) in story order 39 prosecution items (guilty) in witness order 39 defence items (not guilty) in story order 39 defence items (not guilty) in witness order All participants listened to a tape recording of a trial and were asked to respond to written questions, decide if the defendant was guilty or not guilty and rate their confidence in their own decision on a five point scale.

7. Persuading a Jury: Effect of order of testimony Pennington & Hastie – Effects of memory structure on judgement Results: Table to show % of participants giving a guilty verdict. What do the results show? Story order persuaded more jurors of Caldwell’s guilt in the prosecution case (78%) If the defence presented its evidence in witness order, even more jurors would find a guilty verdict. If the positions were reversed and the defence had the benefit of the story order, the guilty rate drops to 31%. The greatest level of confidence in verdicts was expressed by those who heard the defence or prosecution in story order The lowest level was by the group who heard both witness order prosecution & defence. Defence Story Order Defence Witness Order Prosecution Story Order 5978 Prosecution Witness Order 3163

8. Persuading a Jury: Effect of order of testimony Pennington & Hastie – Effects of memory structure on judgement Conclusion: They have shown the persuasive effect of presenting information in story order. In this case there is a difference in the defence case, which seems not to be as persuasive as the prosecution case, even when presented in a story.

9. Persuasion Expert witnesses are widely used in criminal trials to add scientific credence to evidence. From the research by Loftus et al we know that eye witness testimony is unreliable. Psychologists such as Loftus are often called as expert witnesses for the defence to warn jurors of the possible problems with eye witness testimony. However, research has shown the jurors disregard these warnings and still believe eye witness accounts.

10. Persuasion: Cutler et al (1989) The effect of the expert witness on jury perception of eyewitness testimony Aim: To investigate whether hearing about psychological research from an expert witness which casts doubts on the accuracy of eye witness testimony will affect a juror’s decision-making by making them more sceptical. Procedure: 538 undergraduates viewed a videotaped mock trial of a robbery. Afterwards they individually completed a questionnaire containing the dependent measures which were the verdict, a memory test and rating scales of how confident they were in their verdict.

11. Persuasion: Cutler et al (1989) The effect of the expert witness on jury perception of eyewitness testimony There were 4 Independent variables: Witness Identifying Conditions (WIC): These were either good (no disguise, a hidden gun, 2 day delay in identification, no suggestive instructions) or bad (robber disguised, handgun, 14 day delay, suggestive instructions). Witness confidence: Witness said they were either 100% or 80% confident that their identification was correct. Form of testimony: Expert witness either gave a descriptive testimony about EWT or relied on % and figures. Expert Opinion: The expert expressed an opinion on a scale of 0-25 on the accuracy of the testimony, this coincided with the good or bad WIC in variable 1.

12. Persuasion: Cutler et al (1989) The effect of the expert witness on jury perception of eyewitness testimony Results Jurors verdicts: When WIC was good, more guilty verdicts were given and this effect increased if the expert witness gave a descriptive testimony. Juror memory: 85% correctly recalled the testimony, so poor memory cannot be blamed. Juror confidence: This was good in the good WIC condition. It was stronger if the witness was 100% and increased if the expert witness also expressed confidence. Conclusion: The experiment shows that the expert testimony improved juror’s knowledge and made them pay more attention to WIC. With expert testimony, juror sensitivity to problems with evidence is improved and may help to prevent miscarriages of justice.

13. Effect of evidence being rules inadmissible The law says that in order for evidence to be admissible in court, its relevance must outweigh its potential for prejudice. Inadmissible evidence includes past convictions and evidence obtained by illegal means. If inadmissible evidence is presented in error by a witness, the judge will direct the jury to disregard what they have just heard. However, by drawing attention to it, it may be that the jury in fact pays even more attention to it. This is called reactance theory.

14. Effect of evidence being rules inadmissible Pickel: Investigating the effect of instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence Aims: To look at the effect of prior convictions To look at the role of the judge’s instructions when they were followed by a legal explanation To examine how much the credibility of the witness affects the juror’s ability to ignore inadmissible statements. Procedure: 236 Bali State University students took part in the study. There were two conditions; both groups listened to an audio tape of a mock trial. Critical evidence was introduced ‘accidentically’ by a witness, this was objected to and the judge rules that it was inadmissible and that the jury should ignore it. In one condition this was followed by a legal explanation of why the evidence was inadmissible In the second condition this explanation was not there. Participants were asked to decide on the verdict, the probable guilt of the defendant, a 10-point scale on the effect of knowledge of prior convictions and the credibility of the witness.

15. Effect of evidence being rules inadmissible Pickel: Investigating the effect of instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence Results: Mock jurors who heard the evidence rules inadmissible, but received no legal explanation were able to ignore it and found the defendant guilty. Those who heard the evidence rules inadmissible and were given a legal explanation were less likely to find the defendant guilty and had clearly not been able to ignore it. The credibility of the witness and knowledge of prior convictions had no significant effect. Conclusion: It would seem that calling attention to inadmissible evidence makes it more important to the jury and they pay more attention to it.

16. Evaluation of persuading a jury Sample & Generalisibility: Pennington & Hastie – 130 students, North-western University, all Americans and were paid to take part (bias). All students, no variety of participants from different backgrounds and professions (bias). Males and females used. Cutler et al – 538 undergraduates, doing a Psychology course (demand characteristics as already taken Psychology). Big sample (generalisable to students), many doing Psychology so could be aware of studies (bias), used males & females. All students. Pickel et al – 236 Bali state University students. Psychology students (demand characteristics + bias), all students. All three studies looked at students. There was no variety of participants from different backgrounds and professions therefore they could all have similar ideas. This can’t be generalised to the wider population.

17. Evaluation of persuading a jury Methods All three studies used a Lab experiment and self-reports (likert scale or questionnaire). Advantages of using a Lab experiment: P & H: High control as standardised (in 4 conditions) and listened to the same trial. Can compare between groups. No interaction with each other (less bias). Could see cause and effect (order affecting verdict decisions) Cutler et al: IV affecting DV (e.g. good WIC led to more guilty verdicts + witness confidence). All viewed same videotaped robbery trial therefore fair comparison. Pickel et al: All seen same mock trial of fictional theft (standardised and high control). Also can see cause and effect as shown critical evidence with explanation affects jury decision). Control group used so can compare.

18. Evaluation of persuading a jury Methods Disadvantages of using a lab experiment Pickel et al: lab study (lacks EV as very controlled environment). Although it was based on a true case, participants are still listening to a tape recording – different from being at court. Cutler et al: Watched mock trial of a robbery (not a real case) and once again different to being at court (emotions elicited). Pickel et al: mock trial of a fictional theft (same as above). Depends on what case is being used in the study – some participants may be more sensitive to particular crimes. P & H – defence case – victim was drunk and lunged forward to knife – may be the case itself then the story order that influenced them (depends on case).

19. Evaluation Issues ETHICS Ethical as used mock trials and juries. One cannot use real juries as it is unethical (confidentiality & privacy needs to be respected). Informed consent taken (students happy to take part)

20. Evaluation Issues Validity: Internal: High internal validity in all studies as procedure is controlled and standardised and conditions kept the same. However, because it’s not a real trial, partciipants may have responded to DC (lowers internal validity). Also, use of self-reports can also reduce internal validity (social desirability + bias). Ecological: Can’t generalise cases to real court cases as they were fictional. P & H was a real case but still not at court (listening is different to being there). Low in external validity as sample is not representative to all types of people.

21. Self-reports P & H : rate their confidence (social desirability) Cutler et al showed that through self-reports he was able to look at other factors influencing decision making e.g. memory and confidence. They generated quantitative data which allows for data to be analysed easily. However, it can lead to bias as a scale of opinion of expert could be biased. What does 10 mean on a scale? People have different interpretations.

22. What implications do these studies have on persuading a jury? P & H It is important to present evidence in story order rather than witness but it also depends on the case. Important in courtroom not to present best and last evidence but the way it happened so jury is more valid and not influenced. Cutler et al Expert witness psychologists can have an effect on decision-making e.g. if witness identifies condition being poor or good, this has influence on jury’s decision. If condition is good, more guilty verdicts are given especially if witness is descriptive rather than looking at quantitative data. It is therefore important to DESCRIBE in detail in courtroom (more holistic view). It also showed that juror memory was fine most of the time. This suggests that people do not always forget, they built their schemas, use cues to bring back memory. They are able to encode the information in ways they find meaningful and retrieve it later using relevant cues. Confidence played a role and showed that increased confidence increases decision-making. There is no evidence that expert testimony made the jurors sceptical about witness’s credibility or accuracy of identification. However, it may make them more sensitive to problems.

23. What implications do these studies have on persuading a jury? Pickel et al Inadmissible evidence with an explanation makes it more important to the jury and they pay more attention to it. They can then apply their sense of fair play and decide whether or not to make use of it. It should be available and administered impartially by the judge as it could be persuasive but in a minor manner. There is no evidence that credibility of witness would affect the juror’s ability to disregard inadmissible evidence.